Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

Star Trek: Into Darkness (Contains Spoilers)

JafitJafit0 Posts: 0Member
edited September 2013 in General Discussion #1

BBC Sherlock Holmes as Khan Noonien Singh :D
Post edited by Jafit on
Tagged:
«13456717

Posts

  • BolianAdmiralBolianAdmiral1114 Torrance, CaliforniaPosts: 2,560Member
    My eyes... my eyes...

    No, thanks... this looks even crappier than the first JJ-Trek. Now the Enterprise is also a submarine...
  • Chris2005Chris2005675 Posts: 3,096Member
    Did I just see the Enterprise rising out of water?
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • JafitJafit0 Posts: 0Member
    My eyes... my eyes...

    No, thanks... this looks even crappier than the first JJ-Trek. Now the Enterprise is also a submarine...

    Lensflare Trek was a good film imo, the characters were portrayed well and while the story could have been better I think it was a step in the right direction.

    The reboot is better than what the declining franchise had been producing. Star Trek jumped the shark at First Contact when they turned the Borg from a powerful, cold, calculating, sinister manifestation of unchecked technological advancement, into a bunch of bumbling, inept cyborg henchmen taking orders from a supervillan Queen, whom the crew of Voyager would go on to evade and outwit on a weekly basis.
  • BolianAdmiralBolianAdmiral1114 Torrance, CaliforniaPosts: 2,560Member
    Well, I would agree with you in regards to the first JJ-Trek, in all fairness, but I personally don't feel that JJ is taking the franchise in the right direction. Star Trek has always been the "intellectual" sci-fi... relying more on depth of plot and character to do its thing... Star Wars was the more action-oriented and fast-paced sci-fi vehicle. What I see in this trailer is a wholly different creature than what I consider a Star Trek animal... it's an action/thriller, not a serious science-fiction foray. Just my two cents. Maybe the actual film reviews that come will (hopefully) prove me wrong. But I'm not confident of it.
  • moebiustripmoebiustrip0 Posts: 0Member
    I could never buy into the used universe look from the last Star Trek film. All the shuttle crafts that looked like Dakota's that had been beaten up just didn't sit right with me.
  • ZoxesyrZoxesyr332 Posts: 0Member
    I admit my opinion may be premature, based only on the information so far. I'm really tired of "dark and gritty" sci-fi. Star Trek, especially TOS, was about hope for the future. Let's get out of the darkness, please.
  • AresiusAresius359 Posts: 4,171Member
    Seeing that lava, I was reminded to Star Wars RotS, Vader versus Obi-Wan...

    I wonder about the plotline. Who could be the one returning. Not Khan, could he?
  • JafitJafit0 Posts: 0Member
    Zoxesyr wrote: »
    I admit my opinion may be premature, based only on the information so far. I'm really tired of "dark and gritty" sci-fi. Star Trek, especially TOS, was about hope for the future. Let's get out of the darkness, please.

    I've heard that the fiction of a certain era will reflect the general feeling at the time it was created. The 50s and 60s were a time of prosperity and the sci-fi of the time was generally nice and optimistic, 70s were less so, it was the height of the cold war, and their sci-fi was darker.

    Today we're in an economic slump, not only is our fiction dark but it's recycled from things that have come before. It's not commercially sound for a big studio to risk a big budget on a brand new concept, it's simply safer to rehash an existing franchise that has an established fan base and a history of success.

    So, while you may not agree with the direction that Star Trek has taken, you can at least appreciate that there are reasons for it.
  • Chris2005Chris2005675 Posts: 3,096Member
    Sure, episodes reflected on certain issues of the time, but it always had this primary vision and that's to seek out new life and explore space and so forth... episodes like "Author, Author" from Voyager and "The Measure of a Man" from TNG dealt with equal rights and I don't mind the alternate universe in JJ's movies, but it just doesn't give me the same feeling as the rest of the Star Trek franchise... all I see is an action movie in this trailer...
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • JafitJafit0 Posts: 0Member
    Turns out this is still relevant :3
  • homerpalooza67homerpalooza67228 Posts: 1,891Member
    ughhh. I"ll probably watch it, and i probably will hate it. This whole trailer was non-stop action, which just is not trek. Deus Ex Machina meets Star Wars dressed up as Star Trek....

    Maybe JJ should take a look at the trek films which were the most popular; the ones which had a decent amount of action, a decent amount of intelligence, and a decent amount of optimism.
    I much prefer the clean, new, federation to the gritty dark JJ Trek.
  • L2KL2K0 Posts: 0Member
    cant say much from this trailer, but i like that JJ direction.
    actual things happen and not only a half movie of tech dialogues and computer encoding. god i deeply hate endless technoblable. and i hate even more when they solve the plot using technobable. (god i hate so much tng and voyager for this)

    its dark, of course, because we are in dark ages, like someone mentioned earlier.
    i also prefer the dark knight to the 1965 batman serie...
  • Chris2005Chris2005675 Posts: 3,096Member
    L2K wrote: »
    cant say much from this trailer, but i like that JJ direction.
    actual things happen and not only a half movie of tech dialogues and computer encoding. god i deeply hate endless technoblable. and i hate even more when they solve the plot using technobable. (god i hate so much tng and voyager for this)

    Well, that's kind of what Star Trek has been from the start... and it's mainly considered hard science fiction, which is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both.

    In Star Trek, Earth has become a very technologically and scientifically advanced society, where reason has for the most part won out... and as far as government goes, it's almost like a technocracy...
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • IRMLIRML253 Posts: 1,993Member
    star trek has never been hard sci-fi
  • L2KL2K0 Posts: 0Member
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    Well, that's kind of what Star Trek has been from the start... and it's mainly considered hard science fiction, which is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both...

    tos wasnt like this. early movies neighter. it was about people, what they did and how they related to each other. tech was on a second plane. tng/voy are not about people, they are about technical details, and what was the better way, pros and con, side effects to invert the polarity on the handwavium reactor.
  • Chris2005Chris2005675 Posts: 3,096Member
    IRML wrote: »
    star trek has never been hard sci-fi

    Well, Star Trek tends to skew towards hard sci-fi, tackling concepts that are extrapolations of real/current scientific concepts, like warp drive, transporters, replicators and more, but was from the get go billed "'Wagon Train' to the Stars," referring to a TV western about a bunch of travelers who'd get into a new adventure each week as they continued on a journey.

    As Star Trek constantly has emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both... I mean, if you've got the support of the US space program and many other real world scientists, I think that says a lot...
    L2K wrote: »
    tos wasnt like this. early movies neither it was about people, what they did and how they related to each other. tech was on a second plane. tng/voy are not about people, they are about technical details, and what was the better way, pros and con, side effects to invert the polarity on the handwavium reactor.

    Well, at least not as much, having seen a great many TOS episodes, it wasn't as prevalent but it still was there every once and a while, as for the early movies, I would agree, there wasn't much technical or scientific emphasis like we see in TNG, VOY and DS9... but through TNG, etc. there were still a great many morality stories, etc. like "The Measure of a Man" which dealt with equal rights, same with the episode "Author, Author" in Voyager... or the episode "Tapestry" about Q giving Picard a chance to change his past and prevent the mistakes he made in his youth, but Picard realizes that it's his past that defines who he is and how he's gotten to where he is now... because it helped him realize how fragile life is, and thus made him more willing to take risks and make his mark on the universe.

    I think the tech/science-y nature of Star Trek made it stand out from other science fiction franchise, along with the greatly progressed society, etc. Gene Roddenberry was a futurist and a humanist, and I think many of those aspects found their way into all of incantations of Trek, but I don't feel it in JJ's movies...
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • JafitJafit0 Posts: 0Member
    People are trying to call Star Trek 'hard sci fi'. Ohgod.

    When someone says 'hard sci-fi', people think Arthur C Clarke and Kim Stanley Robinson. Nobody thinks Gene Roddenberry.

    You can't have hard sci-fi with magical warp drives, magical transporters, magical cloaking devices, magical energy shields and force fields, magical telepathy, and a vast abundance of alien species which are all basically humans with extra bits on their faces whom everyone can interbreed with.

    Hell, the last time I saw someone in star trek even bothering to wear an EVA suit was in the Abrams reboot. in TNG they'll happily beam over to a derelict ship wearing nothing but their Starfleet pajamas, because every creaking space-wreck can apparently support 100 kPa of pressurized atmosphere inside them before tearing themselves apart just as the transporter beams the away team to safety, the away team always consisting of the most important officers on the ship.

    I'll stop ranting now.

    tl;dr: Star Trek isn't hard sci-fi. Just don't.
  • Chris2005Chris2005675 Posts: 3,096Member
    Jafit wrote: »
    People are trying to call Star Trek 'hard sci fi'. Ohgod.

    When someone says 'hard sci-fi', people think Arthur C Clarke and Kim Stanley Robinson. Nobody thinks Gene Roddenberry.

    You can't have hard sci-fi with magical warp drives, magical transporters, magical cloaking devices, magical energy shields and force fields, magical telepathy, and a vast abundance of alien species which are all basically humans with extra bits on their faces whom everyone can interbreed with.

    Hell, the last time I saw someone in star trek even bothering to wear an EVA suit was in the Abrams reboot. in TNG they'll happily beam over to a derelict ship wearing nothing but their Starfleet pajamas, because every creaking space-wreck can apparently support 100 kPa of pressurized atmosphere inside them before tearing themselves apart just as the transporter beams the away team to safety, the away team always consisting of the most important officers on the ship.

    I'll stop ranting now.

    tl;dr: Star Trek isn't hard sci-fi. Just don't.

    I don't know what else to consider it, it's not a space opera like Star Wars... so what genre of scifi is Star Trek, even my die-hard Star Wars fan friend considered Star Trek closer to hard scifi?

    Well, I wouldn't call those things magical, since many are very close to coming true... e.g. warp drive... the only thing I can't see being true anytime soon is the telepathy thing, as for the large number of alien species, I wouldn't consider that far outside the realm of possibility, considering how vast the galaxy is... however, that's a question Marina addressed at a little convention panel I saw on YouTube, they were talking about the dumbest questions they'd ever gotten at a convention, and someone asked her "why do all the aliens look humanoid?" To which she replied and I'm paraphrasing... "Well, when they start to interview non-humanoid species, that will change." lol.

    I wouldn't say everyone, there are some species that no doubt can't interbreed... I've seen a great many episodes where they wear EVA suits when beaming down to a planet, etc. "Demon" from Voyager comes to mind... I would consider many episodes rather over dramatic and containing very improbable circumstances half the time, but in my opinion and many others I know, Star Trek has maintained a certain level of scientific accuracy even if it's theoretical sciences... and has been very technically inclined... heck, Isaac Asimov and Gene Roddenberry were good friends...
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • biotechbiotech171 Posts: 0Member
    Jafit wrote: »
    People are trying to call Star Trek 'hard sci fi'. Ohgod.

    When someone says 'hard sci-fi', people think Arthur C Clarke and Kim Stanley Robinson. Nobody thinks Gene Roddenberry.

    You can't have hard sci-fi with magical warp drives, magical transporters, magical cloaking devices, magical energy shields and force fields, magical telepathy

    Its set in the future, or are we meant to have invented everything that can possibly be invented already?

    Still don't take my word for it, take this guy's.

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
    Arthur C. Clarke
  • Randal RRandal R0 Posts: 0Member
    hell, may as well add my 2 cents, as I read some view ST 2009 as I did.

    too much flare and reflex,and glint and all manner of light factory lens flares.
    Was a good flick, but I too experienced eye discomfort.

    It totally , from the get go opening, was turned off to the effects and look and feel of it .
    Did some one say Bloom effect? as in we need more of it to tell a story....

    Seems many have turned to this style of film efx or camera lenses and lights and flares and blooms etc.

    Too much is too much...

    Cheers,


    Note:
    Just began watching Six Million Dollar Man ( 1974)
    The pilot is forever in telling a 15 minute script...The recap on part 2 was 10 minutes long...
    Was 8 yrs old then, and TV and all else have changed a lot. Today's audiences are more sophisticated and expect more.. but, back then as with BSG it was prettyy good stuff for TV.
    Another thing I noted, that a clip of Rudy ( I think) looking at Steve Austin in bed,or a monitor was the same shot, and it was used at least 6 times that can recall in part 1, prolly more... and they criticized BSG for the same..lol

    Look back into the past can be enlightening....
  • L2KL2K0 Posts: 0Member
    biotech wrote: »
    Its set in the future, or are we meant to have invented everything that can possibly be invented already?

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
    Arthur C. Clarke



    but set in the future, you expect people to use the magical tech in a very common manner because they are born using them, they dont have to explain every single function. when you browse youtube with your pals, you dont describe theway the options, the video codec, the hardware operates, or how the server handles the click request. you just watch the lolcats.
    an excell user doesnt knows **** about c++. in tng they do, and they even optimize the sourcecode.

    all people arent efficient in everything. tng voy use engineers for everything. from repairing hullbreaches and gunfights to kickstart the alien handwavium reactor, reprograming the artificial intelligence and piloting combat manoeuvres with the ship. the only thing engineers dont touch is the human body.
  • JafitJafit0 Posts: 0Member
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    I don't know what else to consider it, it's not a space opera like Star Wars... so what genre of scifi is Star Trek, even my die-hard Star Wars fan friend considered Star Trek closer to hard scifi?

    Well, I wouldn't call those things magical, since many are very close to coming true... e.g. warp drive...

    Warp drive is purely speculation, and all the other stuff is too. You can't be 'scientifically accurate' when all of your technology and plot devices are based on conjecture and speculation. At best they're adhering to an internal system of rules, which is the same thing Harry Potter does because his universe has magic that tends to operate within certain rules. But even then Star Trek doesn't really bother operating within any set rules if it's inconvenient.

    So, just because you can't think of something to call it doesn't mean you can lump it in with hard sci-fi, which tends to operate within the realm of current science and technical knowledge.

    You can call it soft sci-fi, science fantasy, speculative technology fiction, or whatever else you want.
  • Chris2005Chris2005675 Posts: 3,096Member
    Jafit wrote: »
    Warp drive is purely speculation, and all the other stuff is too. You can't be 'scientifically accurate' when all of your technology and plot devices are based on conjecture and speculation. At best they're adhering to an internal system of rules, which is the same thing Harry Potter does because his universe has magic that tends to operate within certain rules. But even then Star Trek doesn't really bother operating within any set rules if it's inconvenient.

    So, just because you can't think of something to call it doesn't mean you can lump it in with hard sci-fi, which tends to operate within the realm of current science and technical knowledge.

    You can call it soft sci-fi, science fantasy, speculative technology fiction, or whatever else you want.

    Of course, I didn't say it was reality, yet... but it's further along than conjecture.

    What I mean by "scientifically accurate" is that even though it deals with many hypothetical sciences that are not yet reality, it still maintains a certain something about it that makes it seem very different from other branches of science fiction... it's adherence to technicalities, etc.

    Soft science fiction is based on the "soft" sciences, and especially the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and so on), rather than engineering or the "hard" sciences (for example, physics, astronomy, or chemistry).

    The fact is, I follow science greatly, and Star Trek contains many things that are close to being a reality, albeit some closer than others... for example, transparent aluminum is already a reality, although it doesn't carry the same name, whereas warp drive is still speculation, but that's farther than it was a few decades ago...

    I'd watch this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQmi_Be0Xbs

    In which Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses the astrophysics of Star Trek...
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • IRMLIRML253 Posts: 1,993Member
    you've misunderstood what hard sci-fi means
  • Chris2005Chris2005675 Posts: 3,096Member
    IRML wrote: »
    you've misunderstood what hard sci-fi means

    Well, the statements for both hard and soft scifi that I got are what's posted on their Wikipedia pages...

    Hard scifi, broadly, is scifi that takes extra care to follow the real rules of physics, etc... that's the common explanation I've gotten from every single person and source I've found on the internet... it may include unknown science or technology but doesn’t include what those rules declare to be impossible. On the border of hard scifi one also finds scifi that does a few impossible things but otherwise sticks to the rules. As stories include more impossible and unlikely things, they travel down the path to fantasy, eventually arriving at a fully fantastic level where the world works in magical ways as the author found convenient.
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • JafitJafit0 Posts: 0Member
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    As stories include more impossible and unlikely things, they travel down the path to fantasy, eventually arriving at a fully fantastic level where the world works in magical ways as the author found convenient..

    Exactly, that's Star Trek. QED.
  • Chris2005Chris2005675 Posts: 3,096Member
    Jafit wrote: »
    Exactly, that's Star Trek. QED.

    I wouldn't say Star Trek has many impossible or unlikely things... I mean, we've already got tech that has surpassed the communicators in terms of function, maybe not size if we talk about the TNG comm badge... and NASA is working on a possible impulse engine... science is progressing in area's that may eventually get a full fledged VISOR like device, though I recently read something about regrowing eyes from a persons own stem cells... there's a lot in Star Trek that has come to pass or is in very rudimentary stages... like transportation and matter replication... it may not be real world tech at the moment, but we're getting there...

    There was a History Channel program on called "Star Trek Tech" or something like that, in which they explored various Trek tech and it's probability and they had some very cool real world methods...
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • L2KL2K0 Posts: 0Member
    just because it talks about magic in a very technical way doesnt make it more real.
  • JafitJafit0 Posts: 0Member
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    and NASA is working on a possible impulse engine

    You need to stop reading dumbed-down science articles written by people who think they need to mention Star Trek in order to engage the reader's interest.
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    There was a History Channel program on called "Star Trek Tech" or something like that, in which they explored various Trek tech and it's probability and they had some very cool real world methods...

    The History Channel has programs about how ancient aliens might have built the pyramids. I guess that means Stargate is also within the realm of hard science fiction.
  • GuerrillaGuerrilla789 HelsinkiPosts: 2,865Administrator
    Chris2005 wrote: »
    [..]
    Soft science fiction is based on the "soft" sciences, and especially the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and so on), rather than engineering or the "hard" sciences (for example, physics, astronomy, or chemistry).
    [...]

    I don't really agree with this definition as such, but doesn't this kind of make Star Trek a soft science fiction show by your definition as well? I mean the warp drives and subspace-quantum-polarity-reversal-deflector thingies were never really more than convenient plot devices (especially in the later franchises) to get the crew to the next educational bit about altruism, diversity, technology, current political climate or generally what it means to be human or whatever (at least the older series; never really watched Voyager or the last one). All of those things are from the mushy soft end of the spectrum, and if the plot required it, hard science was the first thing out the airlock. That's not to say all their science was wrong or magic or that the shows were bad. It just means it wasn't the point.

    Besides this silly hard vs soft scifi debate, I'm really looking forward to this one. Thoroughly enjoyed the previous one.
    Comco: i entered it manually in the back end
    Join our fancy Discord Server!
Sign In or Register to comment.